Myth 171 - Who is more talented
Today, talents are measured by the salary or income they get. So we have a $10m talent, $1m talent, a $100k so so talent and a $10k not so talent. It is very easy to spot a talent, just by the things that he can afford, his home, his cars, his accessories and his ability to afford holidays, fine dinings and the theatres. When monetary reward is the accepted means of comparing talents, our local talents will have difficulty matching up to those in the developed and rich west. How could we pay someone in our GLCs the equivalent of Citibank, Microsoft, Shell, Yahoo, or the Stock Exchange of New York? What we can afford to pay is simply peanuts to them. So they are more talented than all our talents. Even a small MNCs will be able to pay much more than our best GLCs. Or a senior executive, not even a CEO, will be paid more than our top talents, more than our ministers. So what else can we do to tell people our top talents are as good as these western talents of large international corporations? Shall we pay our top talents as high as them so that we can also be recognised as billion dollar talents? Or shall we hire billion dollar talents to boost up our pool of average million dollar talents? A top talent in public service in China will probably be earning 10% of our average talent in civil service. So our average talent must be more talented. In this way we can tell the world that our talents are the best in the whole of Asia, in monetary terms. But our best will be third or fourth best in the west. For that is likely the amount they are paying to their third or fourth rate talents. The suggested road for Singaporean talents is to go west, get a reasonably high paying jobs and come back to be better than our local talents as they will command a higher pay package. Otherwise don't come back.